This is an AAO appeal decision — a case denied once and appealed. It shows how the framework is applied; it is not the filing population.
The Petitioner sought to work as an entrepreneur providing consulting services to the construction, home improvement, and interior design industries, and to import and distribute porcelain tile products in the United States.
Field: construction/interior design consulting and porcelain product distribution · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
The Director found, and the AAO did not disturb, that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“both corporations were dissolved as "inactive" in September 2020, after the filing of the appeal”
“the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his company, business partnerships, and clientele”
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the specific endeavor he proposes to pursue has significant potential to employ U.S. workers”
“they do not demonstrate that the benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's projects would reach the level of”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“the Petitioner has not substantiated the relevance of his business plan for N-G- (which is currently an inactive corporation) as the basis for pursuing his prospective endeavor”
AAO decision text - media · credited
- resume experience · discounted
“The Petitioner's experience in his field relates to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national."”
AAO decision text - contract revenue · discounted
“they do not demonstrate that the benefits to the regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's projects would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects"”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Business plan speculative · p1 — projections without a documented basis or steps
- Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
- Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Notable
The AAO found the endeavor had substantial merit (withdrawing the Director's contrary finding) but failed national importance; it noted the Petitioner's shifting and inconsistent business vehicles (T-M- vs. N-G-), both of which were later dissolved as inactive corporations after the appeal was filed, undermining the reliability of the business plan relied upon.
Authorities this decision leans on
From the doctrinal survivor set — 187 authority tests across 47 distinct authorities cleared the differential-lift gates. Only those appear here.
- INA 203(b)(2)
- Matter of Ho
- Matter of L-A-C-
- Poursina v. USCIS
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Beneficiary proposed to establish an asset investment management and compliance advisory firm in New York offering c
- The Petitioner proposed to develop and commercialize zeolite-based products in the United States, including agricultural
- The Petitioner proposed to operate a medical billing and healthcare revenue cycle management firm in the United States,
- The Petitioner proposed to establish and lead as CEO a cybersecurity and crisis management company in Florida, offering
- The Petitioner proposed to establish and operate an IT consultancy company in Michigan providing cloud migration, cybers